Top Spanish cop lays out plan to prevent recording and circulation of police actions.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 12:06AM

Why is it that anyone who has a viewpoint contrary to militant protest/some rightly non-existent liberties, seen as "taking it up the rear"!

Only to be expected on boards.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 12:11AM

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

And covering your face for reasons other than religion is an essential liberty?

I suppose we'll be wanting the right to bear arms now? It is of course an essential liberty in this country nowadays, seeing as the Gov couldn.t give a toss about our well being!

Nonsense.

Pottler · 20-10-2012 12:21AM

donvito99 wrote: »

And covering your face for reasons other than religion is an essential liberty?

I suppose we'll be wanting the right to bear arms now? It is of course an essential liberty in this country nowadays, seeing as the Gov couldn.t give a toss about our well being!

Nonsense.

I both expect this right and excercise this right. Also, your username is a bit edgy, but you seem quite square. Don Vito.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 12:25AM

donvito99 wrote: »

And covering your face for reasons other than religion is an essential liberty?

I suppose we'll be wanting the right to bear arms now? It is of course an essential liberty in this country nowadays, seeing as the Gov couldn.t give a toss about our well being!

Nonsense.

The essential liberty is that we should repel the state's intervention into our lives except what is necessary and proportionate.

talla10 · 20-10-2012 12:30AM

kincsem wrote: »

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Perhaps half a dozen officers including Garda Donal Corcoran, the garda nicknamed "Robocop", find themselves part of a major investigation.

It was "Robocop", a strapping six-footer who works as a community policeman around Mountjoy , who was videotaped wielding his baton like the late drummer Keith Moon.

He wore no identification numbers on his shoulders, an omission he must explain to his superiors. So far the Garda Complaints Board has received 12 complaints though it is not known if any relate to Garda Corcoran.

Gda Corcoran was found not guilty of all charges in court and to the best of my knowledge no member of AGS was deemed to have broken any laws on that occasion.

Several students were later convicted of offences.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 12:33AM

talla10 wrote: »

Gda Corcoran was found not guilty of all charges in court and to the best of my knowledge no member of AGS was deemed to have broken any laws on that occasion.

Several students were later convicted of offences.

He did not fair the same in civil case against the state re his actions on that day. You will accept he did do something wrong knowing that.

Pottler · 20-10-2012 12:35AM

talla10 wrote: »

Gda Corcoran was found not guilty of all charges in court and to the best of my knowledge no member of AGS was deemed to have broken any laws on that occasion.

Several students were later convicted of offences.

Criminal damage to a Garda baton??

Guy:Incognito · 20-10-2012 12:40AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You didn't see any Gardai beating up women with batons on Dame St.

Whats this, rules for protesting no 1,"use women as shields cos if police hit them they are evil"?

Chuck Stone · 20-10-2012 12:42AM

donvito99 wrote: »

And covering your face for reasons other than religion is an essential liberty?

Having the choice to is.

Being violently forced to remove a face covering would be a gross violation of a person's right to be left the fuck alone.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 12:43AM

usernamegoes wrote: »

The essential liberty is that we should repel the state's intervention into our lives except what is necessary and proportionate.

And I find the claim that the right to cover ones face to be both an unneccessary and disproportionate insult to all of out other civil liberties.

Guy:Incognito · 20-10-2012 12:45AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Having the choice to is.

Being violently forced to remove a face covering would be a gross violation of a person's right to be left the fuck alone.

You can do it all you want. Just don't expect to be allowed to freely cover your face while blocking up public streets or smashing up businesses.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 12:50AM

donvito99 wrote: »

And I find the claim that the right to cover ones face to be both an unneccessary and disproportionate insult to all of out other civil liberties.

So, in your view, a person should rightly be charged and convicted of a offence for speaking at a protest rally supporting the right to abortion because they wanted to remain private for their own reasons.

You have no idea what freedom means.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 12:53AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You can do it all you want. Just don't expect to be allowed to freely cover your face while blocking up public streets or smashing up businesses.

It is necessary and proportionate to remove face coverings of a person breaking the law.

GalwayGuy2 · 20-10-2012 01:01AM

Stay outa my ****, don't be a busy body - Joe Duffy biddy, and we won't have a problem.

Only one person suggested, and agreed, with covering your face being disallowed (and even then I got the sense he meant only during protest). Also, swearing and calling someone, out of hand, a Fascist or a Joe Duffy Brigade does absolutely nothing to further your argument.

And why is everybody who does not want to protest described, with the delightful phrase, "Taking it up the rear"? Is it because they do not blindly follow a protest movement (a la Occupy) that does not give concrete aims or how they achieve them?

talla10 · 20-10-2012 01:07AM

usernamegoes wrote: »

He did not fair the same in civil case against the state re his actions on that day. You will accept he did do something wrong knowing that.

Do not tell me what I will or will not accept!! He was found not guilty of the alleged offences which you have reported as fact in the criminal courts. Therefore I will accept he is innocent of all charges.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 01:14AM

talla10 wrote: »

Do not tell me what I will or will not accept!! He was found not guilty of the alleged offences which you have reported as fact in the criminal courts. Therefore I will accept he is innocent of all charges.

I have said nothing about him being guilty of a criminal offence as fact or opinion.

He was found not guilty in the criminal courts indeed, therefore you should accept that he was not guilty of those charges.

No such adjudication was made by the civil court, the matter was settled against the state, which means that they felt that most of the evidence went against him.

talla10 · 20-10-2012 01:20AM

kincsem wrote: »

It was "Robocop", a strapping six-footer who works as a community policeman around Mountjoy , who was videotaped wielding his baton like the late drummer Keith Moon..

You have clearly stated as a fact that he used his baton inappropriately when this was proven not to be the case.

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 01:20AM

talla10 wrote: »

You have clearly stated as a fact that he used his baton inappropriately when this was proven not to be the case.

Em, that's not me.

talla10 · 20-10-2012 01:24AM

Aplogies username I've just noticed you did not post that. Sorry

usernamegoes · 20-10-2012 01:26AM

talla10 wrote: »

Aplogies username I've just noticed you did not post that. Sorry

No problem. Have a good night.

Chuck Stone · 20-10-2012 01:42AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Also, swearing and calling someone, out of hand, a Fascist or a Joe Duffy Brigade does absolutely nothing to further your argument.

I swear. Big deal. I swear in real life too - it's just the way I am.

My only argument is: leave me alone if I'm not doing anything wrong.

If I want to walk up the street wearing a ski mask then what's the problem?

Son Of A Vidic · 20-10-2012 01:44AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

1. People don't go to protests with their faces covered to act in a peaceful manner.

A stupid generalisation there. I have taken part in demonstrations in the past where I made sure my face was obscured in some way. Due to the nature of my profession, this was done at the time to protect my future career prospects. There certainly was no violent intent nor violence on my part, but rather just a simple desire to remain anonymous.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

2. Police should not only be allowed to be filmed in the course of their duties, they should be encouraged to be filmed.

A point I would equally apply to demonstrators. Demonstrators should and must protect themselves from the police by making sure they are observed and recorded where necessary.

The brutal police treatment of the innocent Ian Tomilsion being a prime example. Thankfully, the ready availability of modern media recording devices at the time, prevented the police from getting away with the death of an innocent man.

rosser44 · 20-10-2012 01:55AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Demonstrators should and must protect themselves from the police by making sure they are observed and recorded where necessary.

Do you also agree that police officers have the right to defend themselves and innocent bystanders from violent protesters who are committing criminal damage and assaulting their fellow officers? I'm not talking about any protest in particular, just wondering.

I'd like to point out that I am not a member of the Gardai and have no ties to them whatsoever.

Furious_George · 20-10-2012 02:07AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think it should be a criminal offence to cover your face in public?

Difficult one due to religious practices but it is quite often an indication of intent to do something illegal. Covering face so cant be identified.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 02:13AM

usernamegoes wrote: »

So, in your view, a person should rightly be charged and convicted of a offence for speaking at a protest rally supporting the right to abortion because they wanted to remain private for their own reasons.

Your scenario is a strange one. A person attends a rally because they want to remain anonymous? So if I took a picture of you at that rally, no doubt covering your face, would you demand that I delete the photo? Double standards.

Cmoing back to the original point of dispute, if you attend said abortion protest and it gets out of hand (ie topic of thread) you should not be allowed to cover your face, because the IRA and bank robbers have already thought of that, and they're illegal.

You have no idea what freedom means.

O rly? Maybe not by the book, but thats fine by me. I hereby surrender my right to cover my face in a public place during a protest, and to kill two birds with one stone, run down the streets naked like an SSF victim and all other ridiculous scenarios you keyboard minority put forward.

Go nitpick somewhere else, because that is exactly what you're doing, nitpicking. Abusing, violating the very rights you are so quick to call on.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 02:16AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

A stupid generalisation there. I have taken part in demonstrations in the past where I made sure my face was obscured in some way. Due to the nature of my profession, this was done at the time to protect my future career prospects. There certainly was no violent intent nor violence on my part, but rather just a simple desire to remain anonymous.

There's follow through, there's conviction. Just like Benny Franklin...

Son Of A Vidic · 20-10-2012 02:26AM

rosser44 wrote: »

Do you also agree that police officers have the right to defend themselves and innocent bystanders from violent protesters who are committing criminal damage and assaulting their fellow officers?

Absolutely they have and I support their right to do so. But I just don't see it happening very often unfortunately. Because invariably some slap happy, baton wielding officer does more damage to the innocent bystanders. Than he/she does to those who set out with deliberate criminal intent on their minds.

rosser44 wrote: »

I'd like to point out that I am not a member of the Gardai and have no ties to them whatsoever.

So what if you are? I have nothing to hide, you ask me a simple question and I'll give you an honest answer.

Chuck Stone · 20-10-2012 02:27AM

Furious_George wrote: »

Difficult one due to religious practices but it is quite often an indication of intent to do something illegal. Covering face so cant be identified.

You don't walk up the street covering your face on the way to commit a crime. That would only draw attention.

donvito99 · 20-10-2012 02:36AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Absolutely they have and I support their right to do so. But I just don't see it happening very often unfortunately. Because invariably some slap happy, baton wielding officer does more damage to the innocent bystanders. Than he/she does to those who set out with deliberate criminal intent on their minds.

The reason a policeman would be using his baton would be that the initially peaceful protest had descended into a violent one (a la original video - thread topic).

Therefore, there can be no innocent bystanders as you say. Of course that is not to say that every protester deserves a slap with a baton. I find it totally disheartening that Police cannot deal with violent protests (e.g. student protest last year, Madrid protests etc) without getting a disproportionate level of stick (no pun intended) from the media, primarily social media, and I would include boards in that category also.

Police are given batons for a reason after all! People who violently protest know this, and it is frankly hilarious how they become hysterical (see G20/London student protests for example) when batons are drawn and they are met with a legitimate, proportionate response.

I feel that policing protests can only ever nowadays result in a lose-lose situation for the police, and that is a terrible shame. And one of the reasons for this is, to come back to the topic, people illegally covering their faces.

Piliger · 20-10-2012 02:37AM

usernamegoes wrote: »

I have said nothing about him being guilty of a criminal offence as fact or opinion.

He was found not guilty in the criminal courts indeed, therefore you should accept that he was not guilty of those charges.

No such adjudication was made by the civil court, the matter was settled against the state, which means that they felt that most of the evidence went against him.

Wrong. They didn't want to waste money and it was cheaper to settle.

Corcoran's a total hero along with his mates. We are fortunate to have such great guys to deal with these a$$hole thugs posing as protestors. I thought they were way too restrained.

Top Spanish cop lays out plan to prevent recording and circulation of police actions.

Comments